Exercise Caution when Using AI in Case Work
Whatever one’s attitude to it might be, AI is here to stay and has quickly become the ‘go-to’ research tool. However, be warned!! Its content is not always correct, credible, or reliable.
The recent case of Ayinde, R v The London Borough of Hackney provides a cautionary tale reminding us of the need to ‘fact check,’ if resorting to AI for assistance.
Briefly, in a Judicial Review case, Counsel representing the claimant provided written submissions relying on five case authorities, all of which the defence complained were fake.
On being ‘caught out,’ the instructing solicitor for the complainant wrote to the court describing the fake case citations as “cosmetic errors,” easily explained but there was no need to do so. Their Lordships were unimpressed with the response.
The defence made an application for ‘wasted costs,’ given that the caselaw relied upon by the claimant simply did not exist.
Their Lordships described both Counsel and the Solicitors for the claimant as “improper, unreasonable and negligent.” It was stated, “…..it is the responsibility of the legal team, including the Solicitors, to see that the statement of facts and grounds are correct….Providing a fake description of five cases, including a Court of Appeal case, qualifies quite clearly as professional misconduct.”
Although there was no formal finding that AI had been relied on, that was clearly the suspicion.
Therefore, we must be astute to ensure that, if we use AI as part of our case or trial preparation, it is our responsibility as a lawyer and an ’Officer of the Court,’ to ensure that the facts we rely on are both correct and credible.
For further details:
The cases that weren’t. – Nearly Legal: Housing Law News and CommentJudge condemns lawyers who produced “fake citations” to court – Legal Futures